Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

I look at a conversation about if one game is more tactical than another on an analytical basis. That is, if 40k were determined to be more or less tactical, I see it as a direct attribute and not a quality that determines if it is "better or worse" than WM/H.

You can argue perhaps that chess is more tactical than checkers, but does that make checkers a bad game? I don't think so. But then I think the problems with 40k have way more to do with how GW is trying to market the game (i.e. extreme cost of rules, army bloat) and less to do with whether the game is as tactically engaging as WM/H.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

We're not saying it's better, just far more in depth in terms of strategy, because it is. If you don't like to think out every move and just want to toss dice around, then WMH isn't for you. That's not right or wrong, fun is subjective. But WMH is more tactical and in-depth in terms of gameplay.

You will note that I did not say 40K is the most in depth tactical simulation in the universe - its far from it - 40K is not designed this way - why are people not accepting this and insist on comparing a large skirmish, finicky and ultra precise fantasy combat game with a large scale Sci-fi game - what's this achieving?

However I question the threads basically saying - look this game is great -and this game sucks?

There are tactics and skill involved in playing 40k - its not just thrown large amounts of dice randomly on the table as is being suggested and which is frankly insulting.

Precision, forethought and the understanding of intricate interactions between units is definitely required of WM/H - but then this is as much or even more true of Malifaux and many other games.............and to a certain extent in 40k as well.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Bottom line for me is that 40k seems to boil down to who has the biggest guns and then just rolling buckets of dice (which can be fun, granted) versus a lot more planning and timing - Do I activate this unit first, or should I activate my Warcaster, use this spell, pop my feat and then activate everything else so they benefit. There's a myriad of depth in Warmachine play virtually the entire game that 40k just doesn't seem to have because while there's a lot of special rules in 40k, most of them are just bloat and don't actually add anything of value.

Ok look another massive over simplification of one game and "oh the game I actually like is just soo OMG awesome"

40k and WMH are very different - they bring different things and people enjoy different things about them - that's why these threads are pointless - I might as well start a thread of "why Warmachine is not fun" and post my friends and my views on this - but what's the point?

We're not saying it's better, just far more in depth in terms of strategy, because it is. If you don't like to think out every move and just want to toss dice around, then WMH isn't for you. That's not right or wrong, fun is subjective. But WMH is more tactical and in-depth in terms of gameplay.

You will note that I did not say 40K is the most in depth tactical simulation in the universe - its far from it - 40K is not designed this way - why are people not accepting this and insist on comparing a large skirmish, finicky and ultra precise fantasy combat game with a large scale Sci-fi game - what's this achieving?

However I question the threads basically saying - look this game is great -and this game sucks?

There are tactics and skill involved in playing 40k - its not just thrown large amounts of dice randomly on the table as is being suggested and which is frankly insulting.

Precision, forethought and the understanding of intricate interactions between units is definitely required of WM/H - but then this is as much or even more true of Malifaux and many other games.............and to a certain extent in 40k as well.

Not claiming tactical depth is unique to Warmahordes either. I'd agree Malifaux operates on roughly the same level. Something like Flames of War is a step down in both depth and complexity, but probably is better in terms of getting depth out of what complexity it has. Infinity as battle reports and player testimony seem to describe it is probably somewhat above something like flames of war in depth, but below even WM/H & Hordes Malifaux in terms of how much depth it gets for the level of complexity.

However the OP was asking why WM/H has more Tactical depth and that's a fine question. The point of the thread is to illustrate that and satisfy someone's curiosity.

Certainly 40k isn't just "Just" throwing d6s at each other, there's some element of list building too, and also the need to be able to memorize target priority. It's all rather bare bones though. It is more d6 throwing than other things, which isn't "Bad" in anyway.


EDIT:

If the OP opened a thread saying "In what ways is Warmahordes more frustrating than other games, and how can it leave you feeling bad after a game?" there would be plenty to say in that thread too.

Most are not saying 40K sucks, just that it is not the tactical game WM/H is. I would compare 40K to bowling and WM/H to American Football. Bowling is fun for many people. Are there tactics, subtlety, and nuance in bowling? Sure, but it's not in the same category that football is in tactical diversity.

The question this thread is asking is the difference in tactical level between the two games, not which is good and which is bad. After playing 40K since 2nd edition and WM/H for about three years now, it is obvious to me that WM/H has much more tactical depth.

 malfred wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
...people tend to figure out the crazy "I win" tactics before they figure out the counters.

This can't be true! It's too logical to be true!!!

I blow minds for a living.

I have seen games end on turn 1, but its always been because of a really dumb error on the part of the losing player.

Like spending all your fury and charging forward against a Kraken that has access to Ghost Shot.

eHaley can get a Hunter shot into the opponent's deployment zone of turn 1, but its not going to kill any warcasters. Its a gimmick to try and disable a warjack before it gets a chance to activate.

The earliest you can reliably win WMH is turn 2, but again it usually requires a misstep from your opponent.

Bad matchups do exist, but that's why the competitive format uses multiple lists.

 Grey Templar wrote:
eHaley can get a Hunter shot into the opponent's deployment zone of turn 1, but its not going to kill any warcasters. Its a gimmick to try and disable a warjack before it gets a chance to activate.

I killed Mortnembra with two shots from a Hunter in an EHaley list once (marshalled to a Gun Mage officer with Strangeways granting Focus, Crit Brutal, Temporal Acceleration, and Deadeye all up on it) but that was turn two.

Yeah, although you'll never get to repeat that against the same player twice.

Warmachine does have a lot of gimmicky assassination possibilities, but they'll never happen to the same player twice. It is a lot like the Fool's Mate in Chess, it'll happen once against a newbie and then they're wise to it.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:

 malfred wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
...people tend to figure out the crazy "I win" tactics before they figure out the counters.

This can't be true! It's too logical to be true!!!

I blow minds for a living.

Does that make you a cerebratute?

I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

But I do feel the way models activate is more fluid than 40k and makes it easier to keep track of what models you have moved and what needs to be done. It makes your choice in what to activate in what order extremely important.

In the end I don't think it is more tactical I just feel it is different. If I had to pick a game that feels more tactical I would probably say something like Infinity because you have to take into effect not only your own turn but how your models react on the opponents turn.

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Killing the warlock is one win condition.

Taking and holding ground is another.

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Try playing Steamroller. You'll find that assassination as a win condition drops off dramatically.

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. Nobody has to "Agree to Disagree" when they can simply point out your position has no basis in fact. If you check tournament stats, I think it's roughly a 70% (assassination) vs 30% (scenario) wins. Usually scenario pressure is what forces casters into kill-able positions anyway.

Certainly it's a big part of the game but to say it's the basis of the entire game, when several matchups can see an array of outcomes from decisive wins to close game without either caster ever being in danger it certainly can't be what the entire game is about.

 Chongara wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

The one thing about Warmahordes is "kill this on model and win" that's the game basically. I don't find that more tactical gameplay wise but I do not hate it and don't get me wrong I love my Everblight army.

So you never played the game with scenarios?

I am saying the entire game is based around killing the Warcaster or Warlock. Not saying that it is the only way it is played. If you feel otherwise then we will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. Nobody has to "Agree to Disagree" when they can simply point out your position has no basis in fact. If you check tournament stats, I think it's roughly a 70% (assassination) vs 30% (scenario) wins. Usually scenario pressure is what forces casters into kill-able positions anyway.

Certainly it's a big part of the game but to say it's the basis of the entire game, when several matchups can see an array of outcomes from decisive wins to close game without either caster ever being in danger it certainly can't be what the entire game is about.

We just played a mini 3 round tourney. And one of the rules was that if you killed the enemy warcaster. The game wasn't over. I didn't design the tournament, but I think it was in the steamroller rules.

Welshhoppo, did anyone win the game after their caster was assassinated? I would doubt that someone would since they play such a big part. I'm just curious, not trying to get into the argument about caster kill being what the game is about.

A desperate assassination run when you realize you can't win the scenario sounds prrrreeetttyyy tactical to me.

 Chongara wrote:


Nope. Nobody has to "Agree to Disagree" when they can simply point out your position has no basis in fact. If you check tournament stats, I think it's roughly a 70% (assassination) vs 30% (scenario) wins. Usually scenario pressure is what forces casters into kill-able positions anyway.

Sounds like it is center the game is based around to me, not all of the game but a big chunk. Thanks for proving my point

Caster kill. Feature. Not bug.

The game is based around winning. Caster kill is just one way to win.

Someone said somewhere that WH40K is a bit like Tic Tac Toe and WM/H is chess, I find it quite a good metaphore/description/whatever.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

 Limey wrote:
Welshhoppo, did anyone win the game after their caster was assassinated? I would doubt that someone would since they play such a big part. I'm just curious, not trying to get into the argument about caster kill being what the game is about.

I don't believe so, not many of us lost warcasters. But the rules were That beasts went rabid and jacks went inert, but units still worked. You can't ever afford to throw the caster away, regardless of whether losing it is an instant kill.

Iron-Fist wrote:
There are DEFINITELY net lists in warmachine. And the power difference between the top tier lists and the bottom is just as big as 40k. Balance is pretty tenuous and tends to be similar towards the style of "everyone is broken in their own way."

WM is more like MTG, a lot of it is deck building and slapping synergies on top of each other. It is less beer and pretzels because the rules are very precise and designed to allow ridiculous things to happen, and you have to know all of them for every army and how they work together if you are going to play competitively (especially in the harshly timed tournament setting). You have to know a LOT about all the armies because you have to counter their strategy or you'll just die immediately against a lot of armies.
...
For 40k tournaments it is mostly luck of the draw in who you play and finger crossing for TO rule decisions. FAQs are better than they used to be though. I'd love to see a double list system, ironically I bet it would make people a take more balanced lists because they'd have greater chances of running into their anti-list in that situation.

It's not for the above reasons. Most of the outcome is determined before the game even starts.

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

Infinity doesn't premeasure. It's just an aspect of game design to add a different form of uncertainty. Dice provide randomized uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring adds tactile uncertainty from the user's input.

 Surtur wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

Infinity doesn't premeasure. It's just an aspect of game design to add a different form of uncertainty. Dice provide randomized uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring adds tactile uncertainty from the user's input.

Lots of games do use pre-measuring - whether stated or as an element of the board design- whether a game is better with or without pre-measuring is subjective. I and others feel it is a positive element but I take your point.

 Surtur wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
I do feel they should add some pre measuring to the game. It could really speed the game up an reduce chances of cheating and arguments.

How does measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speed up the game or reduce the chances of cheating and arguments?

As previously stated re pre-measuring its realy really simple.

You don't need to constalty measure anything - what we find in our games that allow premeasuring: In the same way as I am not asking you to explain "How do you ever get a game done when you must constantly spend time guessing every potential movemnent and its consequences"

We will measure and agree that Unit A is in range of unit B during the movement phase or whatever, means no queries later if the table is knocked etc or is omeone moves something they shouldnt by mistake or - cos you have both agreed it no longer matters where it is later on.

Of course you can still cheat - nothing can eliminate that - thats why I said REDUCE and not eliminate. Ie as above people can;t move something mid game so suddenly so its not at the correct range later, also people can't use work arounds - inbuilt to the game or otherwise to "measure" distance when they are not supposed to like length of fingers, hands and arms, the size of the tiles that the game is being played on.

Its no problem in other excellent and equally complex or convoluted tactical games that use premeasuring or marked grids - from Malifaux to Chess? Would chess be a bette game if you had to guess charge ranges?

Infinity doesn't premeasure. It's just an aspect of game design to add a different form of uncertainty. Dice provide randomized uncertainty. Lack of pre-measuring adds tactile uncertainty from the user's input.

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

 Vash108 wrote:

I don't mind the lack of pre-measuring in Infinity because the small model count you play with. At least in our group it is not that big of a scene and all my games have consisted of using around 8 models.

You still haven't explained how measuring something before instead of after (or even measuring multiple times), speeds up the game or reduces the chances of cheating and arguments.